Islamabad: Musa Gilani files plea to seek pre-arrest bail
ISLAMABAD: Ali Musa Gilani, son of former prime minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani, on Thursday filed two petitions in the Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi bench, order dated 3–09–2012 and pre–arrest bail and the same be confirmed after notice to state. Ali Musa is accused of pressuring officials of the Health Ministry in 2010 to allocate over quota of controlled chemical ephedrine to two pharmaceutical companies – Berlex and Danas. A three-member bench headed by Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk on Wednesday granted pre-arrest bail to Federal Minister for Textile Industry Makhdoom Shahabuddin till September 25 in the same matter. Khalid Ranjha filed the petitions on behalf of Musa Gilani under article 185(3) of the Constitution. The second petition related to grant of special leave to appeal against judgment Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi bench, judgment dated 29–08–2012, wherein the LHC upheld the order for the grant of pardon to the Dr. Rasheed Juma and Rizwan Ahmed Khan. The petitioner explained that Anti–Narcotics Force Rawalpindi on 10–10–2011 registered an FIR No.40 under sections 9-C, 14, 15, 16 of Control of Narcotics Substance Act (CNSA) 1997, allegedly when the issue was raised by the National Assembly. The then Health Minister on 03–02–2011 on the floor of the House gave assurance that action had been initiated against two companies, which had obtained permission for export of Ephedrine illegally and thereafter sold the same in local market. According to the petition, Musa Gilani is neither a share holder nor partner in any of the companies.
This fact can well-nigh be verified from the documents of registration of both the companies/concerns. It said that on the basis of the FIR investigation were carried out and incomplete Challan was submitted on 17th of February 2012, and on 16-04-2012 supplementary Challan was submitted, but in both the Challans there was no reference of the petitioner. Similarly, on 1–06–2012 yet another Challan was submitted in that too petitioner does not figure in any manner as an accused. Khalid Ranjha said in the petition to the LHC it was told that in the face of standoff between petitioner’s father and establishment and also to frustrate the election campaign of petitioner’s brother in NA 151 an endeavor was made to involve the petitioner. He contended that in the absence of any incriminating evidence ANF procured a warrant of arrest against the petitioner on 21-06-2012, which speaks volume for the malafide harbored by ANF.
The petitioner learnt about this malicious conduct of ANF through media when he was in Karachi. He then sought protective bail from Sindh High Court against the ANF act, which was granted till 16-07-2012.It was in view of the embargos contained in section 51 of the CNSA 1997. The petitioner opted to seek bail before arrest from Lahore High Court but the same was turned down by the LHC Rawalpindi Bench wide order dated 3rd of September 2012.The LHC grossly erred when it proceeded to hold that Syed Ali Musa Gillani has made “no particular reference to any malafides against the investigation agency”. It would not be unfair to say that by omitting to read the relevant paras the court virtually bent backwards to deny the concession of bail to the petitioner. Khalid Ranjha said in the petition before the LHC while explaining malafides of the ANF/investigating agency it was pointed out that petitioner’s name did not figure in the FIR, which had been registered after months of investigation. In order to frustrate petitioner’s bail before the Lahore High Court, the investigating agencies allured two principle accused namely Rizwan Ahmed Khan and Dr. Rasheed Juma, who were all along listed as principle accused in the reports under section 173 Cr.P.C to become approvers to rope in the petitioner. They were tendered pardon on 13th and 16th of July 2012. Despite of all this, interestingly, the High Court still reckons that the petitioner’s case was lacking malafidies on the part of investigation agency. The viries of the recording of the statements of approvers under section 337 Cr.P.C were dully challenged before the High Court as the accord of tender of pardon was not in conformity with the law (no reason having been given as required under section 337 Cr.P.C).Both writ petitions (2094/12 & 2095/12) were dismissed in chambers while refusing the bail before arrest to the petitioner. The Honorable Lahore High Court has largely dwelled on the fact that the Ephedrine had already been determined as Narcotic drug by a division bench of the High Court. It however ignored the fact that the said finding had been challenged before the High Court on the ground that the distinction drawn between controlled substance and controlled chemical had been muddled up. This review was admitted for regular hearing and set down to be disposed of with the petitioner’s case. Unfortunately that review was kept a side and petitioner’s case was disposed off in absence of final adjudication of the issue. On this ground alone leave merits to be granted. The case would be heard by a three-member bench headed by Justice Nasir–ul–Mulk today (Friday).